# random food for thought



## Autumn (Oct 15, 2012)

what is the true range of a pokémon's intelluctual abilities?

they're obviously sentient creatures that are capable of understanding english and acting on decisions rather than instinct. if the anime is anything to go by, the episode Go West Young Meowth proved that they can teach themselves to read and speak English.

so what are their limits.

this came to mind because I was wondering if it would be at all possible to teach a Pokémon to read music or play a (probably modified) musical instrument. i mean their intellectual abilities seem almost comparable to humans' so if they can read and speak English surely they can read and play music?

thoughts on this and other abilities of pokémon?


----------



## Superbird (Oct 15, 2012)

I would probably guess that they have a similar intellect to dolphins, perhaps a bit more. I think the main draw that humans have is that they are more creative than most pokemon.

The real question should be how exactly pokemon originate. I mean, there's proof that humans can not only intentionally, but also accidentally create artificial pokemon. Why aren't humans pokemon, then?


----------



## blazheirio889 (Oct 15, 2012)

I think it depends on the species. Alakazam are frequently said to be way smarter than humans, while something like a Feebas probably won't be able to solve math problems or something like that. But as a whole, I think Pokemon lack creativity, which is why humans command them in a battle and not the other way around.


----------



## RespectTheBlade (Oct 16, 2012)

I believe certain Pokemon are on par with humans as far as intellect goes. Most final evolutions and psychic types fall under this category, plus a few families seem to be as well. Creativity, though... is a good point. Pokemon don't normally show it. Smeargle seems to be an exception; it at the very least can create its own unique markings. And of course Arceus, who was fabled to have made all of creation in the Pokemon world. (I think legendaries fall under their own category. Most major ones appear to be more intelligent than a human.) 

To address your first question, a pokemon could definitely be taught to play an instrument. They can be taught to sing, even going as far to sing in a round. So an instrument wouldn't be a major step up. I don't think a pokemon could truly be a musician, though, as pokemon in general only imitate what they're taught.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Oct 16, 2012)

I don't understand the creativity thing, really. like, surely, in battle, is less important to be creative than to have a solution and exercise it correctly, as efficiently as possible, so as to produce victory in as many cases as possible? I mean, wanting creativity from a human trainer instead of just going with one of those super-intelligent pokémon, some of which are apparently literally capable of reading minds and screwing physics and predicting the future, seems a bit like, I don't know, equivalent of hiring an artist who happens to enjoy watching a splat to coach a splats team, when you could have hired someone who happens to have studied that splat and coaching extensively?

inefficient.

perhaps pokémon are just oppressed and taught from a young age that they'll never amount to anything and ??


----------



## Autumn (Oct 19, 2012)

i think butterfree's argument somewhere on the main site was essentially that they're not as knowledgeable on their own dynamics as humans are. types and weaknesses/resistances are not studied extensively by pokémon the same way as humans study them and it's not like pokémon have memorized certain aspects of battling like humans have (magnezone's floating, surely that means earthquake won't work? or then they use it anyway and it does work, then why doesn't it affect weezing??? gyarados gets hydro pump by level, why shouldn't it use it? it has more base power than waterfall after all! swords dance three times and then attack? but that takes too long. i could just attack it outright!) so maybe that's a reason trainers are around, because pokémon know they've been studied extensively and that the trainer is (usually) probably right?

i mean imagine trying to run one of the dpp tower's famed trickscarf teams on pokémon that make their own decisions. _the horror_


----------



## yiran (Oct 21, 2012)

Because I am a spoiled little brat I denounce canon and firmly believe that they are of human intelligence. >:(

Seriously though, it doesn't make sense. If a species can communicate with a vocal language then their intelligence should be fine. (Also, I don't know the details but I think creativity is linked to intelligence, so if they are as intelligent as humans they shouldn't be any less creative.)


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Oct 21, 2012)

sreservoir, the answer is simple; none of the people or pokémon in-universe are as smart as you are



yiran said:


> [...]I think creativity is linked to intelligence, so if they are as intelligent as humans they shouldn't be any less creative.


Creativity and intelligence may correlate in human beings (_maybe_), but pokémon are a rather different set of creatures altogether; it's an easy leap to imagine that despite their intelligence, they lack the innovative thinking skills that would lead to effective battle strategies or, say, civilizations/cities. There's gotta be a reason that Alakazam don't have their own skyscrapers by now!

Ultimately, I feel that humans and pokémon are on similar levels when it comes to generalized intelligence. Pokémon clearly have complex languages and the (inexplicable) ability to understand human speech to a startling degree. They are further capable of facial recognition, a concept of self, acting (which requires not only a concept of self but the ability to empathize with another being), and, if natures mean anything, distinct emotional personalities. If they do have a lack of creativity mixed in there somewhere, then it doesn't have much bearing on their apparent intelligence.


----------



## yiran (Oct 21, 2012)

Blastoise Fortooate said:


> There's gotta be a reason that Alakazam don't have their own skyscrapers by now!


The reason is because the original concept of Pokémon wasn't to create a fascinating story but to have power over fantastical elements. i.e. I blame it all on bad worldbuilding. NOT LACK OF CREATIVITY MY DEAR XENOFICS


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Oct 21, 2012)

Well, whether it's through bad worldbuilding or not, one has to admit that the alakazam created by Nintendo do not have skyscrapers; in the context of the world that they _did_ build, that could be explained at least pretty well by a lack of creativity as humans express it.


----------



## yiran (Oct 21, 2012)

Blastoise Fortooate said:


> Well, whether it's through bad worldbuilding or not, one has to admit that the alakazam created by Nintendo do not have skyscrapers; in the context of the world that they _did_ build, that could be explained at least pretty well by a lack of creativity as humans express it.


Not for me. You haven't considered the variables other than intelligence that could affect ways of life, such as diet or psychic ability, which may eliminate the need for skyscrapers (or other types of human technology). As well as social conditions; how do you build skyscrapers when you're in a ball a lot of the time?


----------

